Here is a comparison of my 1Ds Mark II and the 6D's other sample pic.I used standard style which is defaulted at 3 0 0 0, 70-200mm f2.8 IS at f4.56D is set at 2 0 0 0 portrait style 40mm f2.8STM at f3.5

I can guarantee you that 70-200mm IS at f4.5 is not sharper than the 40mm f2.8 at 3.5

WSMyles

The D600 portrait is 10.5MB compared to the 6D's 4.6MB. It's hardly surprising that the brunette's features are mushed up considering how much compression has been forced on the image for the web. The DoF is also very thin and appears not to be in the vertical plane.

Is there some unwritten rule of web advertising that only poorly taken, poorly processed images of marginal subjects are allowed to be published as samples? Virtually all Canon and Nikon "samples" are worse than the images posted by denizens of this forum with a caption "how can I fix this photo?"

It's hard to say much about the shadow noise when the image has been compressed this heavily

Image 5 [Portrait] = cute girl. Absolutely horrible image quality. Don't tell me it's a front-focus issue. It's Canon's own website - as if they would post images of front-focused images. If they do then they need to sort themselves out ASAP. It's probably that the 6D can't focus to save itself. FAIL!

Image 6 [Portrait] = eyes are soft. Hair on the top of the head is sharper. Another "horrible focus abilities" issue? FAIL!

mchubi

Well, looking at that womans portrait I felt quite disappointed about 6D combined with an L-lense. With my 7d and 15-85IS USM I get sharper images! 6D can do it better, as it is shown in portrait of that little girl on canons sample site. And still even this one is far from glorius! I think it was taken by a click and shoot tourist walking by... If not, shame on canon!

Anyway, I spent 2 minutes of my time and ran a little high-pass sharpening combined with rising contrast on that failed womans portrait. Ways better, as you can see below in the first row! (After that I got a little snotty and did the same to the nikon-image - just the other way around. * g * Perhaps those canon samples got a little sabotage?! Ehm...)

Well, Nikon MIGHT do a better job here. But couldn't it be possible that the Nikon-sample got a little postprocessing as well? Combined with a good out-of-cam picture it would not be a surprise that this beats the canon-crap-sample.

After all, those are not exact the same photographies. Different angle, different light and so on. For a fair comparison you NEED the same circumstances and published raws here. This is not given, so push those sample into the dustbin.

Anyway, I spent 2 minutes of my time and ran a little high-pass sharpening combined with rising contrast on that failed womans portrait. Ways better, as you can see below in the first row! (After that I got a little snotty and did the same to the nikon-image - just the other way around. * g * Perhaps those canon samples got a little sabotage .....

Why the hell would Canon sabotage the shots of the 6D on their site? Why compress it so badly ? Where is their head?

Probably Canon figures no one will buy the 6d because of stellar sample shots anyway? Those who care about pixels are probably those who won't buy the 6d because of the bad spec/price ratio. And landscape tourists will look at the 17-40L shots @iso100 figuring that ff+gps+wifi will come in handy no matter what the d600 does.

Nope, the Photokina interview tells us it's the same thing - but banding will probably be lower due to more recent readout circuits. Why do you think the mediocre sample shots are only up to iso1600 (except the nightsky) :-o ?

maybe it´s my bad english.. with "should be better" i mean it is expected to be better because it´s a new sensor.. not that it is in fact better.

Ah, right, now I get it - I'm no native English speaker either... and new doesn't necessarily mean higher iq even in Canon's book, in the Photokina interview the exec clearly says it's a tradeoff w/ cost. So it's better for Canon, not for us :-p